StefanAVFC Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 Just now, Chindie said: It does set a fun precedent going forwards. Many Americans love the idea of the Good Guy with a Gun intervening in a shooting, but in this basis if a Good Guy with a Gun tries to stop a shooter and gets shot themselves, it's self defence on the shooters part. Brilliant. The words removed sewn up his future political/lobbying industry career though. I fully agree with that. From a legal standpoint though it’s right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 49 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Gets his mum to drive him to another state with an assault rifle, shoots 3 people, no charges. Hilarious. I thought his Mom didn't drive him? He didn't take a weapon across state lines either apparently. The weapon was already in Wisconsin. With a trial like this, there will always be lots of misinformation. Like you said in your other post, probably the right decision. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 19, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 19, 2021 It's probably the right verdict within the shambles that is US law and in particular US gun law. If your starting point is that it's perfectly acceptable within the law to leave your house and head into a dangerous situation carrying an assault rifle loaded with live ammunition so that you can wander around playing soldier, then you put yourself into a very difficult starting position. It's a very interesting case in terms of what constitutes self defence, and whether or not you can be guilty of manufacturing a situation where you are more than likely going to be in a self defence situation - but it's mostly just another example of the utter stupidity of Americas gun laws. In theory a man with a rifle could now wander into a US school, stroll around looking tough, wait for the local security guy to point a taser at him and shoot him dead in self defence. In the UK he'd be liable to a minimum of three years in prison just for having the gun. That's because our laws were written for adults. Basic intelligence is a high price to pay for freedom, but I guess each nation makes its own choices. What time do the riots start? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 Wonder if he will sue? The President labelled him a white supremacist and lots of media types and politicians had declared him guilty before the trial. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said: Gets his mum to drive him to another state with an assault rifle, shoots 3 people, no charges. Hilarious. 50 minutes ago, El Zen said: Can anyone please give me any kind of plausible explanation as to why this is anything but a complete and utter shambles of a verdict? 42 minutes ago, TreeVillan said: Watch the trial, not twitter. TreeVillan is exactly right. In isolation Stefan your point would of course be valid (ie: someone did as you said with no other mitigating factors), but for anyone who watched the trial, i dont see how he could have been found guilty tbf. El Zen, i can only assume you based your opinion on the twitter echo-sphere, rather than actually watching the trial, to have such a conclusion. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 2 minutes ago, MaVilla said: TreeVillan is exactly right. In isolation Stefan your point would of course be valid (ie: someone did as you said with no other mitigating factors), but for anyone who watched the trial, i dont see how he could have been found guilty tbf. El Zen, i can only assume you based your opinion on the twitter echo-sphere, rather than actually watching the trial, to have such a conclusion. I was genuinely asking a question. I don’t use twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 5 minutes ago, MaVilla said: TreeVillan is exactly right. In isolation Stefan your point would of course be valid (ie: someone did as you said with no other mitigating factors), but for anyone who watched the trial, i dont see how he could have been found guilty tbf. El Zen, i can only assume you based your opinion on the twitter echo-sphere, rather than actually watching the trial, to have such a conclusion. I'm assuming you didn't read this this then. 50 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: It’s actually probably the correct verdict based on the trial and evidence. He absolutely shouldn’t have been there but he was attacked first, he shot only those attacking him and even the survivor he shot said he attacked him first. In truth it going to trial in the first place is probably the biggest shambles. Followed by the prosecutors and then the judge himself. A little amusing lambasting others for not having all of the publicly available info... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 (edited) 55 minutes ago, TreeVillan said: Watch the trial, not twitter. I don’t read twitter. It just seemed absolutely counterintuitive that the boy isn’t legally culpable in any way. I appreciate the genuine responses. Edited November 19, 2021 by El Zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 So glad it worked out for everyone. Apart from the people he murdered of course. Quote "Rittenhouse's spokesperson, David Hancock, says now that the trial is over Kyle is going to go to college and try to live as normal a life as he possibly can. He says Rittenhouse is going to study nursing at Arizona State University." https://www.tmz.com/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-found-not-guilty-in-murder-case/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 Just now, sne said: So glad it worked out for everyone. Apart from the people he murdered of course. https://www.tmz.com/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-found-not-guilty-in-murder-case/ He did say he went there in a medic capacity. Happy ending for him fair play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 14 minutes ago, El Zen said: I was genuinely asking a question. I don’t use twitter. my mistake then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 19, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 19, 2021 1 hour ago, El Zen said: Can anyone please give me any kind of plausible explanation as to why this is anything but a complete and utter shambles of a verdict? It's bizarre for someone from outside of the US legal system that he's not guilty of something. You can see the case made for self defence; at the moment of the shootings was he in fear for his life? Yes, he most likely was, so you can say he was defending himself. Okay. It's the kind of case where you'd expect perhaps a verdict where Rittenhouse was found not guilty of homicide by means of self defence, but guilty of some sort of "causing death by" charge, or at least an 'incitement' or 'use of a deadly weapon' charge - but the US is so tied to its gun laws and its peculiar idea of individual freedom that there is no legal framework to charge him with things that in any sensible country he'd be found guilty of. Did Rittenhouse kill those men in self defence? Well, a jury says so - does that make him innocent? I think you'd have to go a long way to justify his actions. America is dangerously polarised and getting worse - there's no will to change its archaic rules and attitudes and there are way too many angry, armed people on both sides of the argument. It's hard to see a positive way forward. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 For a 17 year old to so confidently walk into an out-of-state riot with a big ol' rifle to play sheriff means he knew he'd get off if the shit he was hoping to go down, went down. Debating whether or not it was technically the correct decision is kind of missing the forest for the trees I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancvillan Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 There's literally no responsibility that goes along with owning a firearm in most states in the US. It's madness. Safe storage of firearms isn't rocket science. Nor is a minor using any kind of firearm needing to be supervised (and the supervisor having culpability when it comes to the terminal resting place of anything that comes out of the firearm). It's not Middle East peace - it's really **** simple to have a system where people own firearms but this doesn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 11 hours ago, Chindie said: It does set a fun precedent going forwards. Many Americans love the idea of the Good Guy with a Gun intervening in a shooting, but in this basis if a Good Guy with a Gun tries to stop a shooter and gets shot themselves, it's self defence on the shooters part. Brilliant. The words removed sewn up his future political/lobbying industry career though. I’m a bit lost, who’s the ‘good guy with a gun’ in this example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeVillan Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 Shocking propaganda from the independent, to the point of blatantly lying about who was killed. For anyone who isn't aware, the only person he didn't shoot was a black male, who just so happened to jump kick him in the head. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 4 minutes ago, TreeVillan said: Shocking propaganda from the independent, to the point of blatantly lying about who was killed. For anyone who isn't aware, the only person he didn't shoot was a black male, who just so happened to jump kick him in the head. Perhaps just an error as the article on who was shot is fairly detailed and doesn't make the same error. What propaganda out of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 The thing that gets me is the active celebrations of him and his actions. Be grateful that the legal process was followed and think the verdict was correct, sure. But actively championing him. **** that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 Do you think he’s found not guilty if he’s black? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 2 minutes ago, bobzy said: Do you think he’s found not guilty if he’s black? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts